(3 of 4)
Today the Court cuts the heart out of two of the most important and inseparable safeguards the Bill of Rights offers a criminal defendant: the right to submit his case to a jury, and the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt . . . The skeleton of these safeguards remains, but the Court strips them of life and of meaning . . . The Court asserts that when a jury votes nine to three for conviction, the doubts of the three do not impeach the verdict of the nine. ((But)) we know what has happened: the prosecutor has tried and failed to persuade those jurors of the defendant's guilt. In such circumstances, it does violence to language and to logic to say that the government has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Apodaca v. Oregon
HARRY BLACKMUN
A moderate with liberal leanings, appointed in 1970 by Nixon
In Blackmun's 1977 opinion that lawyers have a right to advertise, he could not resist twitting some in his profession.
It is claimed that price advertising will bring about commercialization, which will undermine the attorney's sense of dignity and self-worth. The hustle of the marketplace will adversely affect the profession's service orientation. ((We)) commend the spirit of public service with which the profession of law is practiced . . . But we find the postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of true professionalism to be severely strained. At its core, the argument presumes that attorneys must conceal from themselves and from their clients the real-life fact that lawyers earn their livelihood at the bar. We suspect that few attorneys engage in such self-deception.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
LEWIS POWELL
A 1971 Nixon appointee and middle-of-the-roader who will be replaced next October
The court in 1977 forbade East Cleveland to use a housing ordinance to force a grandmother to expel her grandson from her home. Powell delivered the judgment.
Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. Over the years millions of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it . . . The Constitution prevents East Cleveland from standardizing its children -- and its adults -- by forcing all to live in certain narrowly defined family patterns.
Moore v. East Cleveland
JOHN PAUL STEVENS
An independent with unpredictable enthusiasms, appointed in 1975 by Ford
A 1976 majority upheld a Detroit zoning limitation on adult theaters showing erotic films. Stevens explained his reasoning.
Society's interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled political debate . . . Whether political oratory or philosophical discussion moves us to applaud or to despise what is said, every schoolchild can understand why our duty to defend the right to speak remains the same. But few of us would march our sons and daughters off to war to preserve the citizen's right to see "Specified Sexual Activities" exhibited in the theaters of our choice.